Posted
by
kdawson
on Sunday December 20, 2009 @10:54PM
from the vatican-rag dept.

An anonymous reader sends in news of what must be some kind of record in overreaching intellectual property claims: the Vatican has declared that the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See. They may have a point if, as the declaration hints, some have used "ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to attribute credibility and authority to initiatives" unrelated to the Vatican. But how much room will they allow for fair use? Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns? The royalty schedule was not released, so it's not clear how much Slashdot will have to pay to run this story (or if there will be a penalty for the accompanying pagan idol).

The GPL allows you to modify the original work. The bible, however, clearly states that it is the word of God and should not be modified. It is therefore not GPL-compatible. The codebase it's based on is also of dubious origin.

But even if the licensing terms weren't crap, it'll never catch on. It's a buggy beta release that's been ported to other languages or forked dozens of times because the developers can never agree on a single design. It's also not very user-friendly: The interface tends to kill people, especially before you patch it to SP1 (New Testament). I'd be surprised if they aren't bankrupt in a year.

Speaking as a trained New Testament scholar... wow. Just... wow. That is quite possibly the scariest charter for a Biblical translation I've ever encountered, and I include many oddities in the mix, like the New World Translation and Reformation minefields the Geneva Bible (it's a hobby of mine.) There's no awareness whatsoever that the Bible might not support every element of their agenda, and they're going to cut lose people with no knowledge of the original languages to use a Strong's concordance and the King James in order to create their "translation." Wow.

The way we celebrate Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ. If anything, the whole decorating the tree and gift giving thing would take on even further significance. I think that would be really great. The good will thing would carry on as well.

Yeah, I was going to say, isn't the Catholic church infringing on Gods copyright, unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy.

Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively.

Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology, rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human soci

Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally "from the chair (of Peter)") to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals.[2] The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the defini

The Pope's argument would be, of course, that(while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question, among a large number of other things) he is God's authorized agent/distributor for this territory.

Since this seems like the best excuse for doing so that I've yet had, I include the "software licensing analogy for distinguishing between Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism" below:

Judaism is a corporate site licence: All members of the organization are automatically entitled to software under the terms of a legal agreement between the organization and the software producer.

Catholicism is per-seat licensing from a value-added reseller: The church has an agreement with the software producer, under which its sales reps entitled to sell the software, along with a suite of helper utilities and documentation supplements, and the support of its field techs, to any interested individuals.

Protestantism is retail shrinkwrap software: The individual buyer enters into a contractual relationship with the software producer, without intermediaries. All that the buyer receives is the software and the packaged manual(sola scriptura).

Addendum: Quakers are FOSS: Individuals get together communally, and anybody who the spirit so moves can get up and code something.

In any organization connected to the Catholic church. This includes various parishes around the nation, high schools, some colleges, and any student or teacher organizations that are part of those. For example, a student-run newspaper at a Catholic university such as Notre Dame would be restricted in their use of papal symbols.

Even ignoring the fact that the U.S. does have treaties with the Vatican and would uphold their copyrights in court, a C

Under the Berne Convention and all other copyright treaties, local copyright laws apply in every country. Trademark laws are local as well. The state of Holy See could pass legislation copyrighting the Bible for God's sake (pun intended), and it would have no impact whatsoever on the rest of the world, where that legislation has no relevance.

Whether organizations around the world connected to the Roman Catholic Church are affected by this isn't a matter of copyright law. That's simply a matter of the rules that a church lays out for its members. If the RCC says "no meat on Friday" or "no condoms" or "no use of the pope's logo without permission", that's just a church being a church. I can see members of that church being concerned about a change in those rules, but is this News For Nerds or Stuff That Matters? No.

I really, really, doubt that anyone would be excommunicated for using the Pope's image without permission.

I laughed out loud at that one. Give the 4chan, fark, or slashdot guys a pope pic, a goatse pic, and some playground pics, and within minutes we'll all be scarred for life... Or the ever popular 2g1c theme applied to communion wine. All kinds of fun ways to get excommunicated.

This appears to be a reference to Stalin's remark "The Pope? How many Divisions does he have?" (Where Stalin was talking about military divisions, and making the point that without them, what the Pope said about whatever the USSR did didn't really matter.).

IP Lawyers? Unfortunately, the Pope doesn't have access to them, considering that they've all been condemned to the firey pits of hell! Of course, one doesn't need IP Lawyers when all you have to do is ask God to smite all of the copyright "pirates" for you! Maybe CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal should each do 100 Hail Mary's to avoid being smitten?

First time I saw him that was my immediate thought. Since then I've been unable to remember his real name, Pope Palpatine is so freaking catchy. You can even add a 'the 3rd' or something to the end and it only makes it better.

Next, those nativity scenes they try and throw up every winter will be declared illegal now because they haven't paid to license it from God. Atheists, you may now stop attempting to keep the church and state separate: Apparently, God has made himself illegal. Film at 11.

How does this pass those statues? I can see if someone is using the current Pope's coat of arms or his particular name, in association with their service/company/announcement etc., but simply using a past Pope's coat of arms (especially one that has long been out of active use) can be restricted. Especially for ones which were developed and first used before trademark and copyrights even were written into law. Those are all in the public domain and free to use.

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches. Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are! I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.) Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith, and I'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course, here I am a Baptist whose theological 40% evangelical, 30% Anbaptist, and 30% Eastern Orthodox, so maybe that's not surprising.

Disclaimer: I have a Ph.D. in New Testament, so I know of what I speak. While the Greek Text itself is not (technically) copyrighted in certain forms, the specific arrangement of the Greek Text known as the "UBS4" that is the basis of all modern translations IS copyrighted. And the copyright is enforced. That is why I said "critical edition" or something along those lines in my original post.

Just registering a trademark in the US is an expensive nine-month hassle (or more), and it's one of the easiest and cheapest places to do so in the world. At least Europe now has a way - well two ways - of registering a Europe-wide trademark, as long as nobody in any of the 27 member states complains. As Michael says, good luck with the rest.

Ugh... I wish people would stop mixing up the difference between trademark and copyright. Notwithstanding that the Vatican is a sovereign state and can do whatever the heck it wants within its boundaries, what they're really declaring is that the trademark of the Pope is going to be reserved for their exclusive use. Copyright isn't even involved here.

Blame the lawyers who specialize in patents, trademarks and copyrights. Ever since they invented the term "Intellectual Property" folks have become increasingly confused. This has benefited "IP" lawyers and those rights holders who try to overreach by playing on the public's confusion.

I don't think that it's a good idea for a church to be able to assert a copyright monopoly over ANY aspect of religious doctrine.

If such nonsense were lawful, the Church could bring a lawsuit against schismatics for copyright infringement. That would infringe the right of schismatics to split from the church and form their own church.

If a schism group wanted to form their own church, why would they even want to use the Papal symbols as they exist today? Wouldn't they want to install their own command chain with some other symbol denoting their pontiff or leader? Using the same symbols would cause confusion and possibly give credibility to the Church the schismatics want to leave, right?

You do raise a good point, but I think this is more to prevent criticism of the Church ("you used the word 'Pope' in your article, and it's critical of

You seem to miss the point of splitting from the source church. Groups that do this usually don't think that the source is wrong, but that it has been corrupted. Thus, when they split, they see themselves as the 'real' church, and thus would take any part that they deem 'real' with them.

Of all the things for such a bunch of sticks in the mud to pick to suddenly get with the times, why did they pick copyright? And why in such a bad way? They must listen to terrible advice. They ought to be out there decrying the evils of keeping people in the dark, not dirtying their hands wielding diabolical tools for dubious ends! They ought to endorse the Pirate Party. What's next? Will they try to assert copyright on the Bible?

There's been at least one long standing battle in the US over much the same problem: people taking an image, name and/or conceptual equivalent, and using it in such a way as to... dishonor is frequently used here, but not many understand the it from the injured parties' standing.... insult is closer but too weak... we'll just say: to promote a commercial product, the juxtaposition of the appropriated image and the product being contrary to the known statements of the party imaged and/or the descendants.

The product in this case is Crazy Horse malt liquor. Crazy Horse spoke out against alcohol many times, specifically claiming its use was destroying his people. His descendants have been trying to get the brewer to stop using the name. No, they didn;t attempt to acquire copy right or trademark protection, because they didn't think they'd need it. In their culture, such protection is automatic and seated deeply in the cultural mores.

I think your looking for a word in the thesaurus that doesn't exist but really it is a modern problem.Steven Colbert sensed this with the "product" such as the paste on Hitler mustache for anybody's portrait.

There is not a nice politically correct way to say willfully deride, malign, or intend a vicious and ill parody of person or entity for profit.Many hide under the guise of sarcasm of a celebrity or public figure but that is not their true intent.

When I heard of this, the first thing that came to mind was the painter Francis Bacon and his "Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X" otherwise known as the 'screaming pope'. Have fun with that. I suspect they may only want to exercise their supposed copyright claim and control over a very narrow area.

I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim. I don't think they're claiming that you can't refer to the pope or even display his symbols without permission. They just don't want them used in such a way as to suggest that the Pope has authorized something without permission. This is the same as a regular trademark. You can talk about IBM and even portray its logo; you just can't use them in such a way as to suggest that you speak for IBM or are affiliated with IBM.

The Pope was today sued by God for GPL violations of the Bible. The complaint submitted by God claimed that all material published by the Holy Father was required to be released under the GNU General Public Licence because it was a derivative work of the scriptures.

Father Guido Sarducci: It was. It was a real thrill, Bill. It was just terrific. But now I'm a little down. I have what my psychiatrist calls "post-papal depression."... Was such a high, you know, bein' on that tour and now it's over. Only thing I didn't like about the tour was the merchandising. They had, like, Pope T-shirts, Pope buttons, posters, banners, anything you can think of. You know, you can call me anti-materialistic if you want to but I just don't think it's right for somebody to make a T-shirt, put a person's picture on it, and then not to give that person part of the percentage of the profits.... I mean, look at this. It's amazing. [holds up a Pope T-shirt] If you buy T-shirt like this, it's not just for the T-shirt you buy it -- it's because the Pope is on it. If you just want a T-shirt, you can go to J. C. Penney's 'stead of going through all the traffic and crowds. But the Pope, from this T-shirt, I'll tell you what he got. He got absolutely zero. It was a rip-off. First, they did it to Mr. Bill, now the Pope.... [applause]

Really? It seems about as ridiculous to me. To use just the first example you list, how many countries other than the UK have some form of Constitutional Monarchy? And the general pattern continues. To pick another example, there are members of the House of Saud who are out of favor or who don't reside in Saudi Arabia. Does that mean they will be breaking copyright if they try to use their legitimate titles?
This is as stupid with other groups as it would be with the Vatican. The issue here isn't prejudice

1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur [reference.com] (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).

2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations.)

3) It's their office, thus their right... still open for parody and news purposes though, at least in western nations that enjoy freedom of speech. No different than if Tux the Penguin were registered as a trademark by the Linux Foundation, really (For instance, using Tux as a marker for Linux news stories, versus Microsoft using Tux as their new logo for Windows 8...) They're no further beyond or above secular law (outside of Vatican City) than any other organization... which makes the summary kind of a moot point.

2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations.)

It is somewhat unsurprising that a Catholic is blissfully unaware that nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of Peter being named to this office, that Jesus even established the Papacy, or that Peter was even regarded as a bishop.

Most references only discuss the concept of Peter being in that role from about the 4th century AD, and indeed the Catholic church had to issue a document in the 1960s to codify this belief as dogma.

As a product of 12 years of catholic schooling, let me just say that this is generally regarded as ret-conning. You can tie institutional Catholicism to Peter though scripture, but drawing a line from Peter through to Leo is a bit dicey.

I wasn't implying that they didn't have the RIGHT to such a copyright/trademark, I was simply trying to point out the underlying problems with trying to enforce such a copyright claim.
Given the especially litigious atmosphere surrounding IP and copyright these days, it seems to me that the the Papacy may have invited trouble unnecessarily.

1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur [reference.com] (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).

Italian guy here. Studied what an imprimatur was and its implications in literature in high school. In Galileo's times, imprimaturs ("be it printed", Latin) were necessary to print books in several areas of Italy, including, of course, the Papal States and all states that cared about good relationships with Rome. Therefore, obviously had Galileo to falsify one to publish a book, he would not have been able otherwise.

On the other hand, imprimaturs were widely recognised as marks of bad quality publications. They caused the same reaction that a label reading "this videogame has been approved by the Christian union of concerned mothers" would today.

No book worth reading has ever received the imprimatur, to my knowledge.

This isn't a copyright claim (the headline is completely wrong). It's a trademark claim. Copyright is a TEMPORARY restriction to free speech to encourage creative works. Even though Disney et al have been expanding copyright lengths to keep from returning their copyrighted material to the public domain (where it belongs), copyright lengths are still less than a hundred years. So even if they wanted to, they couldn't make a copyright claim on stuff that's more than a thousand years old. Trademarks are a different story.

The distinction between copyright, trademark, and patent law is important in todays information wars.

Still, trademark isn't something you can just claim out of the blue. Unless they've already had a trademark since the start and enforced it, those symbols will have lapsed into common use since a long time.

I'm not sure there (thankfully) exists any IP form appropriate for what they want to do. Even if they could claim trademark, they'd end up having to enforce it against ten year olds webpages which would make them look like (even bigger) asses.

If they claim they aren't Christians, then they aren't Catholic either.

In any case, there's one simple test to determine whether someone is a Christian or not - Nicene creed (yes, there is more than one version; I'd consider a person accepting any one currently in use a Christian).

The first two having apostolic and historic roots (ie go all the way back to apostles and first Christians) separated in 1054.

Actually all three branches have apostolic roots the only difference being that the Orthodox schism happened earlier than the Protestant one. Anglican bishops still trace their lineage back through the Catholic church to the apostles.

Anglicans have, as I understand, nullified their priesthood after their separation

Not really - the Catholic church "nullified" the Anglican priesthood after separation however Anglicans do not acknowledge that as valid. Historically there is evidence to show that the chain of laying on hands from bishop to bishop back to the apostles is at least as unbroken as the Catholic chain.

Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright? It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).

This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy [vatican.va], and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law [vatican.va] that deals more with the organizational integrity of the Catholic Church than anything else.

It has nothing really to do with copyright or trademark, but this is Slashdot, so things unrelated to IP law in general and copyright i